P!>° y "o • 






















^0 












S%$C^^. 












,4q 



-^^0^ 



/ 4^^'-. \/ Z^"^'-: \,*^ .*^&\ \,/ .*;^'-: %. 



te^-^ 



„A^ :)^i^:. \/ ;^\ %,^^ ^>^^A. ' 



o 7/// v> /yWW 



>. 



'\ 








r .. <^ •' = "°'' ^^"^ 




-l^ 



-^^0^ 









>. 







^^^. '.c,..,,.:./; .^-^^^ \^^^^; ^^-^^ ':^^>i <^^^ '^^^mm 










M Jlutbentic Jlccount 

OF 

Hon. Abraham Lincoln 



Being Invited to give an Address in 

Cooper Institute, N. Y. 

February 27, I860 

Together with Mr. Bryant's Introduction and 

Mr. Lincoln's Speech 



!Jr: 



PRIVATEI,Y PRINTED 

PUTNAM, CONN. 

I915 



.4 

• 6^5 






%. ao • li 



ruct. 



^ 



NARRATIVE 



OF 



JAMES A. BRIGGS, Esq. 



(From The New York Evening Post, August 16, 1867) 

To the Editor of The Evening Post : 

In October, 1859, Messrs. Joseph H. Richards, J. M. 
Petting-ill, and S. W. Tubbs called on me at the office 
of the Ohio State Agency, 25 William Street, and 
requested me to write to the Hon. Thomas Corwin of 
Ohio, and the Hon. Abraham Lincoln of Illinois, and 
invite them to lecture in a course of lectures these 
young gentlemen proposed for the winter in Plymouth 
Church, Brooklyn. 

I wrote the letters as requested, and offered as com- 
pensation for each lecture, as I was authorized, the 
sum of $200. The proposition to lecture was accepted 
by Messrs. Corwin and Lincoln. Mr. Corwin delivered 
his lecture in Plymouth Church, as he was on his way 
to Washington to attend Congress ; Mr. Lincoln could 
not lecture until late in the season, and the proposition 
was agreed to by the gentlemen named, and accepted 
by Mr. Lincoln, as the following letter will show: 



Narrative of James A. Briggs, Esq. 

Danville, Illinois, November 13, 1859. 
"James A. Beiggs, Esq. 

"Deak Sir: Yonrs of the 1st inst., closing with my 
proposition for compromise, was dnly received. I will 
be on hand, and in due time will notify you of the exact 
day. I believe, after all, I shall make a political speech 
of it. You have no objection! 

"I would like to know in advance, whether I am also 
to speak in New York. 

"Very, very glad your election went right. 
"Yours truly, 

A. LiiSrcoLN. 

"P. S. — I am here at court, but my address is still 
at Springfield, 111." 

In due time Mr. Lincoln wrote me that he would 
deliver the lecture, a political one, on the evening of 
the 27th of February, 1860. This was rather late in 
the season for a lecture, and the young gentlemen who 
were responsible were doubtful about its success, as 
the expenses were large. It was stipulated that the 
lecture was to be in Plymouth Church, Brooklyn; I 
requested and urged that the lecture should be deliv- 
ered at the Cooper Institute. They were fearful it 
would not pay expenses — $350. I thought it would. 

In order to relieve Messrs, Richards, Pettingill, and 
Tubbs of all responsibility, I called upon some of the 
officers of "The Young Men's Republican Union," and 
proposed that they should take Mr. Lincoln, and that 
the lecture should be delivered under their auspices. 
Tliey respectfully declined. 

I next called upon Mr. Simeon Draper, then presi- 
dent of "The Draper Republican Union Club of New 
York," and proposed to him that his "Union" take 
Mr. Lincoln and the lecture, and assume the responsi- 
])Hity of tlie expenses. Mr. Draper and his friends 



Narrative of James A. Briggs, Esq. 

declined, and Mr. Lincoln was left on the hands of 
''the original Jacobs." 

After considerable discussion, it was agreed on the 
part of the young gentlemen that the lecture should be 
delivered in the Cooper Institute, if I would agree to 
share one-fourth of the expenses, if the sale of the 
tickets (25 cents) for the lecture did not meet the out- 
lay. To this I assented, and the lecture was advertised 
to be delivered in the Cooper Institute, on the evening 
of the 27th of February. 

Mr. Lincoln read the notice of the lecture in the 
papers, and, v^dthout any knowledge of the arrange- 
ment, was somewhat surprised to learn that he was 
first to make his appearance before a New York audi- 
ence, instead of a Plymouth Church audience. A notice 
of the proposed lecture appeared in the New York 
papers, and the Times spoke of him ''as a lawyer who 
had some local reputation in Illinois." 

At my personal solicitation Mh. William Cuij.ei^ 
Bkyant presided as chairman of the meeting, and 
introduced Mr. Ijincoln for the first time to a New York 
audience. 

The lecture was a wonderful success; it has become 
a part of the history of the country. Its remarkable 
ability was everywhere acknowledged, and after the 
27th of Februarv the name of Mr. Lincoln was a 
familiar one to all the people of the East. After Mr. 
Tjincoln closed his lecture, Mr. David Dudley Field, 
Mr. James W. Nye, Mr. Horace Greeley, and myself 
were called out by the audience and made short 
speeches. I remember of saying then, "One of three 
R-Antlemen will be our standard-bearer in the presi- 
dential contest of this year: the distinguished Senator 
of New York, Mr. Seward; the late able and accom- 
plished Governor of Ohio, Mr. Chase ; or the 'Unknown 
Knifrht' who entered the political lists against the Bois 
Guilbert of Democracy on the prairies of Illinois in 



Narrative of James A. Briggs, Esq. 

1858, and unhorsed him — Abraham Lincohi." Some 
friends joked me after the meeting as not being a 
''good prophet." The lecture was over — all the 
expenses were paid, and I was handed by the gentle- 
men interested the sum of $4.25 as my share of the 
profits, as they would have called on me if there had 
been a deficiency in the receipts to meet the expenses. 

Immediately after the lecture, Mr. Lincoln went to 
Exeter, N. H., to visit his son Robert, then at school 
there, and I sent him a check for $200. Mr. Tubbs 
informed me a few weeks ago that after the check was 
paid at the Park Bank he tore it up ; but that he would 
give $200 for the check if it could be restored with the 
endorsement of "A. Lincoln," as it was made payable 
to the order of Mr. Lincoln. 

After the return of Mr. Lincoln to New York from 
the East, where he had made several speeches, he said 
to me, *'I have seen what all the New York papers 
said about that thing of mine in the Cooper Institute, 
with the exception of the New York Evening Post, and 
I would like to know what Mr. Bryant thought of it;" 
and he then added, ''It is worth a visit from Spring- 
field, Illinois, to New York to make the acquaintance 
of such a man as William Cullen Beyant." At Mr. 
Ijincoln's request, I sent him a copy of the Evening 
Post \y\i\\ a notice of his lecture. 

On returning from Mr. Beecher's Church, on Sun- 
day, in company with Mr. Lincoln, as wo were passing 
the post-office, I remarked to him, "Mr. Lincoln, I 
wiftli vou would take particular notice of what a dark 
and dismal place we have here for a post-office, and 
I do it for this reason: I think your chance for being 
llio next Prosident is eoual to that of any man in the 
country. When you are President will you recommend 
an appropriation of a million of dollars for a suitable « 

location for a post-office in this city?" With a signifi- | 



Narrative of James A. Briggs, Esq. 

cant gesture Mr. Lincoln remarked, "I will make a 
note of that." 

On going np Broadway with Mr. Lincoln in the eve- 
ning, from the Astor House, to hear the Rev. Dr. E. H. 
Chapin, he said to me, "When I was East several 
gentlemen made about the same remarks to me that 
you did to-day about the Presidency; they thought 
my chances were about equal to the best." 

James A. Briggs. 

P. S. — The writers of Mr. Lincoln's Biography have 
tilings considerably mixed about Mr. Lincoln going 
to the Five Points Mission School, at the Five Points, 
in New York, that he found his way there alone, etc., 
etc. Mr. Lincoln went there in the afternoon with his 
old friend, Hiram Barney, Esq., and after Mr. B. had 
informed Mr. Barlow, the Superintendent, who the 
stranger with him was, Mr. Barlow requested Mr. Lin- 
coln to speak to the children, which he did. I met Mr. 
Lincoln at Mr. Barney's at tea, just after this pleasant, 
and to him strange, visit at the Five Points Mission 
School. 

J. A. B. 



INTRODUCTION 

BY 

WILLIAM CULLEN BRYANT 

THE EMINENT POET 



(From The New York Tril)une, February 28, 18G0) 

Mr. Bryant on taking the chair said: 

"My friends, it is a grateful office that I perform in 
introducing to you at this time an eminent citizen of 
the West, whom you know, or whom you have known 
hitlierto only by fame, but who has consented to 
address a New York assemblage this evening. The 
Great West, my friends, is a potent auxiliary in the 
l)attle we are iigliting for Freedom against Slavery; 
in behalf of civilization against barbarism; for the 
occupation of some of the finest regions of our con- 
tinent, on which the settlers are now building their 
cabins. I see a higher and a wiser agency than that 
of man in the causes that have filled with a hardy 
population the vast and fertile region which forms 
the western parts of the valley of the Mississippi, a 
race of men who are not ashamed to till their acres 
Willi their own hands, and who would be ashamed to 
subsist by the labor of the slave. (Cheers). These 
children of th(' West, my friends, form a living bul- 
wark against tlie advances of Shivery, and from them 
is recruited the vanguard of the armies of Liberty. 
(Applause). One of them will appear before you this 



Introduction hij William Cullcn Bryant 

evening. I present to you a gallant soldier of the 
political campaign of 1856, who then rendered good 
service to the Republican cause, and who was since, 
the champion of that cause in the struggle which took 
place two 3^ears later for the supremacy in the Legis- 
lature of Illinois, who took the field then against 
Douglas, and who would have then won victory but 
for the unjust apportionment laws of the state which 
allowed a minority of the people to elect the majority 
of the Legislature. I have only, my friends, to^ pro- 
nounce the name of Abeaham Lincoln of Illinois. 
(Loud cheering). I have only to pronounce his name 
to secure your profoundest attention." (Continued 
applause and three cheers for Abraham Lincoln). 



SPEECH 



OF 



ABRAHAM LINCOLN 

Delivered at the Cooper Institute 
Monday. Feb. 27, 1860 



Mr. President and Fellow-Citizens of New York: 
The facts with which I shall deal this evening are 
mainly old and familiar; nor is there anything new 
in the general use I shall make of them. If there shall 
be any novelty, it will be in the mode of presenting the 
facts, and the inferences and observations following 
that presentation. 

In his speech last aiitmnn, at Columbus, Ohio, as 
reported in "The Neiv York Times," Senator Douglas 
said : 

''Our fathers, when they framed the Government 
under which we live, understood this question just as 
well, and even better, than we do now." 

I fully indorse this, and I adopt it as a text for this 
discourse. I so adopt it because it furnishes a precise 
and an agreed starting point for a discussion between 
Uojiublicans and that wing of Democracy headed by 
Senator Doughis. It simply leaves the inquiry: 
''What was the understanding those fathers had of 
llie (juestion mentioned F" 

Wliat is the frame of Government under which we 



liver 



Speech of Abraham Lincoln 

The answer must be: "The Constitution of the 
United States." That Constitution consists of the 
original, framed in 1787 (and under which the present 
Government first went into operation), and twelve sub- 
sequently framed amendments, the first ten of which 
were framed in 1789. 

Who were our fathers that framed the Constitu- 
tion^ I suppose the "thirty-nine" who signed the 
orio-inal instrument may be fairly called our fathers 
whS framed that part of the present Government. It 
is almost exactlv true to say they framed it, and it is 
altogether true to say they fairly represented the 
opinion and sentiment of the whole nation at that 
time. Their names, being famihar to nearly all, and 
accessible to quite all, need not now be repeated. _ 

I take these "thirtv-nine," for the present, as being 
"our fathers who framed the Government under which 

we live. ' ' 

What is the question which, according to the text, 
those fathers understood just as well, and even better 
than we do now! 

It is this: Does the proper division ot local trom 
federal authoritv, or anything in the Constitution, for- 
bid our Federal Government to control as to slavery 
in our Federal Territories! 

Upon this, Douglas holds the affirmative, and Kepub- 
licans the negative. This affirmative and denial form 
an issue; and this issue— this question— is precisely 
what the text declares our fathers understood better 

than w^e. , . , . ,, 

Let us now inquire whether the "thirty-mne, oi 
anv of them, ever acted upon this question; and it 
they did, how they acted upon it— how they expressed 
that better understanding. 

In 1784— three years before the Constitution— the 
United States then owning the Northwestern Terri- 
torv and no other-the Congress of the Confederation 



Speech of Ahraliam Lincoln 

liad before tliem tlie question of proliibiting slavery in 
that Territory; and four of the ''thirty-nine" who 
afterward framed the Constitution were in that Con- 
gress, and voted on that question. Of these, Roger 
Slierman, Thomas Mifflin, and Hugh WiUiamson voted 
for the prohibition — thus showing that, in their under- 
standing, no line dividing local from federal authority, 
nor anything else, properly forbade the Federal Gov- 
ernment to control as to slavery in federal territory. 
The other of the four — James McHenry — voted against 
the prohibition, showing that, for some cause, he 
thought it improper to vote for it. 

In 1787, still before the Constitution, but while the 
Convention was in session framing it, and while the 
Northwestern Territory still was the only territory 
owned by the United States — the same question of 
prohibiting slavery in the territory again came before 
the Congress of the Confederation; and three more 
of the "thirty-nine" who afterward signed the Con- 
stitution, were in that Congress and voted on the ques- 
tion. They were William Blount, William Few and 
Abraham Baldwin ; and they all voted for the prohibi- 
tion — thus showing that, in their understanding, no 
line dividing local from federal authority nor anything 
else, properly forbids the Federal Groverinnent to con- 
trol as to slavery in federal territory. This time the 
prohibition became a law, being part of what is now 
well known as the Ordinance of '87. 

The question of federal control of slavery in the 
territories, seems not to have been directly before the 
Convention which framed the original Constitution; 
and hence it is not n^corded that the "thirty-nine" or 
any of them, while engaged on that instrument, 
expressed any opinion on that precise question. 

In 1789, by the first Congress which sat under the 
Constitution, an act was passed to enforce the Ordi- 
n.'uico of '87, iiif'lndiiig 1he prohibition of slavery in 



Speech of Abraham Lincoln 

the Northwestern Territory, The bill for this act was 
reported by one of the " thirt3^-nine, " Thomas Fitz- 
simmons, then a member of the House of Representa- 
tives from Pennsylvania. It went throno-h all its 
sta.^-es without a word of opposition, and finally passed 
both branches without yeas and nays, which is equiva- 
lent to an unanimous passage. In this Congress there 
were sixteen of the ''thirty -nine" fathers wiio framed 
the original Constitution. They w^ere John Langdon, 
Nicholas Gilman, Wm. S. Johnson, Roger Sherman, 
Robert Morris, Thos. Fitzsimmons, William Few, 
Abraham Baldwin, Rufus King, William Patterson, 
(reorge Clymer, Richard Bassett, George Read, Pierce 
Butler, Daniel Carroll, James Madison. 

This shows that, in their understanding, no line 
di'sndinsr local from federal authority, nor anything 
in the Constitution, pronerly forbade Congress to pro- 
hibit slavery in the fed'^ral territory; else both their 
fidelity to correct principle, and their oath to support 
the Constitution, would have constrained them to 
opnose the prohibition. 

Airain, George Washington, another of the "thirty- 
nine," was then President of the United States, and, 
as such, approved and signed the bill, thus completing 
its validitv as a law, and thus shomng that, in his 
understanding, no line dividing: local from federal 
authority, nor anything in the Constitution, forbade 
the Federal Government to control as to slavery in 
federal territorv. 

No g-reat while after the adoption of the original 
Constitution, North Carolina ceded to the Federal 
Government thp country now constituting the State of 
Tennessee ; and a few years later Georgia ceded that 
which now constitutes the States of Mississippi and 
Alabama. In both deeds of cession it was made a con- 
dition bv the cediner States that the Federal Govern- 
ment should not prohibit slavery in the ceded country. 



Speech of Abraham Lincoln 

Besides this, slavery was tlien actually in the ceded 
country. Under these circumstances, Congress, on 
taking" charge of these countries, did not absolutely 
prohibit slavery with them. But they did interfere 
with it — take control of it — even there, to a certain 
extent. In 1798, Congress organized the Territory of 
Mississippi. In the act of organization they prohibited 
the bringing of slaves into the Territory, from any 
place without the United States, by fine, and giving 
freedom to slaves so brought. This act passed both 
branches of Congress without yeas and nays. In that 
Congress were three of the " thirty -nine " wdio framed 
the original Constitution. They were John Langdon, 
George Read and Abraham Baldwin. They all, prob- 
ably, voted for it. Certainly they would have placed 
their opposition to it upon record, if, in their under- 
standing, any line dividing local from federal author- 
ity, or anything in the Constitation, properly forbade 
the Federal Government to control as to slavery in 
federal territory. 

In 1803, the Federal Government purchased the 
Louisiana country. Our former territorial acquisi- 
tions came from certain of our own States; but this 
Louisiana country was acquired from a foreign nation. 
In 1804, Congress gave a territorial organization to 
that part of it which now constitutes the State of 
Louisiana. New Orleans, lying within that part, was 
an old and comparatively large city. There were other 
considerable towns and settlements, and slavery was 
extensively and thoroughly intermingled with the 
people. Congress did not, in the Territorial Act, pro- 
hi])it slavery; but they did interfere with it — take 
control of it — in a more marked and extensive v>'ay 
than they did in the case of Mississippi. The sub- 
stance of the provision therein made, in relation to 
slaves, was: 

First. That no slave should be imported into the 



Speech of Abraham Lincoln 

territory from foreign parts. 

Second. That no slave should be carried into it 
who had been imported into the United States since 
the first day of May, 1798. 

Third. That no slave shonld be carried into it 
except by the owner, and for his own nse as a settler; 
the penalty in all the cases being a fine npon the viola- 
tor of the law, and freedom to the slave. 

This act also was passed without yeas and nays. In 
the Congress which passed it, there were two of the 
* ' thirty-nine. ' ' They were Abraham Baldwin and Jon- 
athan Dayton. As stated in the case of Mississippi, 
it is probable they voted for it. They would not have 
allowed it to pass without recording their opposition 
to it, if, in their understanding, it violated either the 
line proper dividing local from federal authority or 
any provision of the Constitution. 

In 1819-20, came and passed the Missouri question. 
Many votes were taken, by yeas and nays, in both 
branches of Co'Ugress, upon the various phases of the 
general question. Two of the ''thirty-nine" — Rufus 
King and Charles Pinckney — were members of that 
Congress. Mr. King steadily voted for slavery pro- 
hibition and against all compromises, while Mr. Pinck- 
ney as steadily voted against slavery prohibition and 
against all compromises. By this Mr. King showed 
that, in his understanding, no line dividing local from 
federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, 
T\^as violated by Congress prohibiting slavery in fed- 
eral territory; while Mr. Pinckney, by his votes, 
shov.'ed that in his understanding there was some suffi- 
cient reason for opposing such prohibition in that ease. 

The cases I have mentioned are the only acts of the 
"thirty-nine," or of any of them, upon the direct issue, 
which I have been able to discover. 

To enumerate the persons who thus acted, as being 
four in 1784, three in 1787, seventeen in 1789, three in 



Speech of Abrahmn Lincoln 

1798, two in 1804, and two in 1819-20— there would be 
thirtj-^-one of them. But this would be counting John 
Langdon, Roger Sherman, William Few, Rufus King, 
and George Read, each twice, and Abraham Baldwin 
four times. The true number of those of the "thirty- 
nine" whom I have shown to have acted upon the ques- 
tion, wdiicli, by the text they understood better than 
we, is twenty-three, leaving sixteen not shown to have 
acted upon it in any way. 

Here, then, we have twenty-three out of our "thirty- 
nine ' ' fathers who framed the Government under which 
we live, who have, upon their official responsibility and 
their corporal oaths, acted upon the very question 
which the text affirms they "understood just as well, 
and even better than we do now;" and twenty-one of 
them — a clear majority of the whole "thirty-nine" — 
so acting upon it as to make them guilty of gross polit- 
ical impropriety, and wailful perjury, if, in their 
understanding, any proper division between local and 
federal authority, or anything in the Constitution they 
had made themselves, and sworn to support, forbade 
the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the 
federal territories. Thus the twenty-one acted; and, 
as actions speak louder than words, so actions under 
such responsibility speak still louder. 

Two of tlie twenty-three voted against Congres- 
sional prohibition of slavery in the federal territories, 
in the instances in which they acted upon the question. 
But for what reasons they so voted is not known. They 
may have done so because they thought a proper di^d- 
sion of local from federal authority, or some provision 
or principle of the Constitution, stood in the way; 
or they may, without any such question, have voted 
?i gainst the prohil)ition, on what appeared to them to 
be sufficient grounds of expediency. No one who has 
sworii to support tlie Constitution, can conscientiously 
vote for wliat he understands to be an unconstitutional 



Speech of Abraham Lincoln 

measure, however expedient he may think it ; but one 
may and ought to vote against a measure wliich he 
deems constitutional, if, at the same time, he deems it 
inexpedient. It, therefore, would be unsafe to set 
down even the two who voted against the prohibition, 
as having done so because, in their understanding, any 
proper division of local from federal authority, or any- 
thing in the Constitution, forbade the Federal Govern- 
ment to control as to slavery in federal territory. 

The remaining sixteen of the "thirty-nine," so far 
as I have discovered, have left no record of their 
understanding upon the direct question of federal con- 
trol of slavery in the federal territories. But there is 
much reason to believe that their understanding upon 
that question would not have appeared different from 
that of their twenty-three compeers, had it been mani- 
fested at all. 

For the purpose of adhering rigidly to the text, I 
have purposely omitted whatever understanding may 
have been manifested, by any person, however distin- 
guished, other than the thirty-nine fathers who framed 
the original Constitution; and, for the same reason, 
I have also omitted whatever understanding may have 
been manifested by any of the " thirt^^-nine " even, on 
any other phase of the general question of slavery. 
If we should look into their acts and declarations on 
those other phases, as the foreign slave-trade, and the 
morality and policy of slavery generally, it would 
appear to us that on the direct question of federal con- 
trol of slavery in federal territories, the sixteen, if 
they had acted at all, would probably have acted just 
as the twenty-three did. Among that sixteen were 
several of the most noted anti-slavery men of those 
times — as Dr. Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and 
Gouverneur Morris — while there was not one now 
known to have been otherwise, unless it may be John 
Rutledge, of South Carolina. 



Speech of Abraham Lincoln 

The sum of the whole is, that of onr ''thirty-nine" 
fathers who framed the original Constitution, twenty- 
one — a clear majority of the whole — certainly under- 
stood that no proper division of local from federal 
authority noT any part of the Constitution, forbade 
the Federal Government to control slavery in the fed- 
eral territories, while all the rest probably had the 
same understanding. Such, unquestionably, was the 
understanding of our fathers who framed the original 
Constitution; and the text affirms that they under- 
stood the question better than we. 

But, so far, I have been considering the understand- 
ing of the question manifested by the framers of the 
original Constitution. In and by the original instru- 
inent, a mode was provided for amending it; and, as 
I have already stated, the present frame of Govern- 
ment under which we live consists of that original, and 
twelve amendatory articles framed and adopted since. 
Those wdio now insist that federal control of slavery 
in federal territories violates the Constitution, point 
us to the provisions which thev supDOse it thus vio- 
lates; and, as I understand, they all fix upon provi- 
sions in these amendntory articles, nnd not in the origi- 
nal instrument, Tlie SuDreme Court, in the Dred Sco'tt 
case, plant themselves upon the fifth amendment, which 
provides that "no person shall be deprived of prop- 
erty without due process of law ;" while Senator Doug- 
Ins and his peculiar adherents plant themselves upon 
the tenth amendment, providing that "the powers not 
PTnnted bv the Constitution, are reserved to the States 
re^nectively, and to the people." 

Now, it so happens that these amendments were 
fr-nmed by the first Con«*rPss which sat under the Con- 
stitution — the identical Consrress which passed the act 
alreadv mentioned, enforcino- the prohibition of slav- 
erv in the northwestorn territorv. Not oidv was it the 
same Congress, but thev were the identical, same indi- 






9* 



Speech of Abraham LincoUi 

vidiial men wlio, at the same session, and at tlie same 
time within the session, had under consideration, and 
in progress toward maturity, these Constitutional 
amendments, and this act prohibiting slavery in all the 
territory the nation then owned. The Constitutional 
amendments were introduced before, and passed after 
the act enforcing the Ordinance of '87 ; so that during 
the whole pendency of the act to enforce the Ordinance, 
the Constitutional amendments were also pending. 

That Congress, consisting in all of seventy-six mem- 
bers, including sixteen of the framers of the original 
Constitution, as before stated, were preeminently our 
fathers who framed that part of the Government under 
which we live, which is now claimed as forbidding the 
Federal Government to control slavery in the federal 
territories. 

Is it not a little presumptuous in any one at this day 
to affirm that the two things which that Congress delib- 
erately framed, and carried to maturity at the same 
time, are absolutely inconsistent with each other? 
And does not such affirmation become impudently 
al)surd when coupled with the other affirmation, from 
the same mouth, that those who did the two things 
alleged to be inconsistent understood whether thej^ 
really w^ere inconsistent better than we — better than 
he who affirms that they are inconsistent? 

It is surely safe to assume that the ''thirty-nine" 
frnmers of the original Constitution, and the seventy- 
six members of the Congress which framed the amend- 
ments thereto, taken together, do certainly include 
those who may be fairly called "our fathers who 
framed the Government under which we live." And 
so assuming, I defy any man to show that any one of 
tliem ever, in his whole life, declared that, in his under- 
standing, any proper division of local from federal 
authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbade the 
Federal Government to control as to slaverv in the 



Speech of Abraham Lincoln 

federal territories. I go a step further. I defy any 
one to show that any living man in the whole world 
ever did, prior to the beginning of the present century 
(and I might almost say prior to the beginning of the 
last half of the present century), declare that, in his 
understanding, any proper division of local from fed- 
eral authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbade 
the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the 
federal territories. To those who now so declare, I 
give, not only '^our fathers who framed the Govern- 
ment under which we live," but wdth them all other 
living men ^^dthin the century in which it was framed, 
among whom to search, and they shall not be able to 
find the evidence of a single man agreeing ^^^.th them. 

Now, and here, let me guard a little against being 
misunderstood. I do not mean to say we are bound to 
follow implicitly in whatever our fathers did. To do 
so, would be to discard all the lights of current experi- 
ence — to reject all progress — all improvement. What 
I do say is, that if we would surtplant the opinions and 
policy of our fathers in any case, we should do so upon 
e^ddence so conclusive, and argument so clear, that 
even their great authority, fairly considered and 
weighed, cannot stand; and most surely not in a case 
whereof we ourselves declare they understood the 
nuf^stion better than we. 

If any man, at this day, sincerely believes that a 
proper division of local from federal authority, or any 
part of the Constitution, forbids the Federal Govern- 
ment to control as to slavery in the federal territories, 
ho is right to say so, and to enforce his position by all 
truthful evidence and fair argument which he can. 
But he has no riglit to mislead others, who have less 
access to history and less leisure to study it, into the 
ffdse belief that ''our fathers, who framed the Govern- 
ment under which we live," were of the same opinion 
—thus substituting falsehood and deception for truth- 



Speech of Abraham Lincoln 

fill evidence and fair argument. If any man at this 
day sincerely believes ''onr fathers, who framed the 
Government under which we live." used and applied 
principles, in other cases, which ought to have led 
them to understand that a proper division of local 
from federal authority or some part of the Constitu- 
tion, forbids the Federal Government to control as to 
slavery in the federal territories, he is right to say so. 
But he should, at the same time, brave the responsi- 
bility of declaring that, in his opinion, he understands 
their principles better than they did themselves; and 
especially should he not shirk that responsibility by 
asserting that they ''understood the question just as 
well, and even better, than we do now." 

But enough. Let all who believe that ''our fathers, 
who framed the Government under which we live, 
understood this question just as well, and even better 
than we do now, ' ' speak as they spoke, and act as they 
acted upon it. This is all Republicans ask — all Repub- 
licans desire — in relatioai to slavery. As those fathers 
marked it, so let it be again marked, as an evil not to 
be extended, but to be tolerated and protected only 
because of and so far as its actual presence among us 
makes that toleration and protection a necessity. Let 
all the guaranties those fathers gave it, be, not grudg- 
ingly, but fully and fairly, maintained. For this 
Republicans contend, and with this, so far as T know 
or believe, they will be content. 

And now, if they would listen — as I suppose thej^ 
will not — I would address a few words to the southern 
people. 

I v\^ould say to them: You consider yourselves a 
reasonable and a just people; and I consider that in 
the general qualities of reason and justice you are not 
inferior to any other people. Still, when you speak of 
us Republicans, you do so only to denounce us as rep- 
tiles, or, at the best, as no better than outlaws. You 



Speech of Ahraham Lincoln 

will grant a hearing to pirates or murderers, but 
nothing like it to "Black Republicans." In all your 
contentions with one another, each of you deems an 
unconditional condemnation of "Black Republican- 
ism" as the first thing to be attended to. Indeed, such 
condemnation of us seems to be an indispensable pre- 
requisite — license, so to speak — among you to be 
admitted or permitted to speak at all. 

Now, can you, or not, be prevailed upon to pause and 
to consider whether this is quite just to us, or even 
to yourselves? 

Bring forward your charges and specifications, and 
then be patient long enough to hear us deny or justify. 

You say we are sectional. We deny it. That makes 
an issue; and the burden of proof is moon you. You 
produce your proof; and what is it? Why, that our 
party has no existence in your section — gets no votes 
in your section. The fact is substantially true; but 
does it prove the issue? If it does, then in case we 
should, without change of principle, begin to get votes 
in your section, we should thereby cease to be sec- 
tional. You cannot escape this conclusion; and yet, 
are you willins: to abide by it? If you are, you will 
r)robably soon find that we have ceased to be sectional, 
for v.'e shall get votes in your sectioTi this very vear. 
You will then begin to discover, as the truth nlainlv is, 
that your proof does not touch the issue. The fact 
thnt we get no votes in your section is a fact of your 
making, and not of ours. And if there be fault in that 
fact, that fault is primarily yours, and remains so until 
you show that we repel you by some wrong principle 
or practice. If we do repel you by auv wrong principle 
or practice, the fault is ours; but this brings you to 
where vou ought to have started — to a discussion of 
Ihe riirht or wrong of our principle. If our principle, 
nut in practice, woidd wrong vour section for the bene- 
fit of our'i, or for a]iy olher object, then our principle, 



speech of Abraham Lincoln 

and we with it, are sectional, and are jnstly opposed 
and denounced as such. Meet us, then, on the question 
of wdiether our principle, put in practice, would wrong 
your section; and so meet it as if it were possible that 
something may be said on our side. Do you accept 
the challenge 1 No ? Then you really believe that the 
principle which our fathers who framed the Govern- 
ment under which we live thought so clearly right as 
to adopt it, and indorse it again and again, upon their 
official oaths, is, in fact so clearly wrong as to demand 
your condemnation without a moment's consideration. 

Some of you delight to flaunt in our faces the warn- 
ing against sectional parties given by Washington in 
his Farewell Address. Less than eight years before 
Washington gave that warning, he had, as President 
of the United States approved and signed an act of 
Congress, enforcing the prohibition of slavery in the 
Northwestern Territory, which act embodied the policy 
of the Government upon that subject, up to and at the 
very moment he penned that warning; and about one 
year after he penned it he wrote Lafayette that he 
considered that prohibition a wise measure, express- 
ing in the same connection his hope that we should 
some time h^ive a confederacy of free States. 

Bearing this in mind, and seeing that sectionalism 
hns since arisen upon this same subject, is that warn- 
ing a weapon in your hands against us, or in our hands 
against you? Could Washington himself speak, would 
he cast the blame of that sectionalism upon us, who 
sustain his policy, or upon you who repudiate it I We 
respect that warning of Washington, and we commend 
it to you, together with his example pointing to the 
right application of it. 

But you say you are conservative — eminently con- 
servative — while we are revolutionary, destructive, or 
something of the sort. What is conservatism? Ts it 
not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and 



Speech of Abraham Lincoln 

untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old 
policy on the point in controversy which was adopted 
by our fathers who framed the Government under 
which we live; while you with one accord reject, and 
scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon 
substituting something new. True, you disagree 
among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be. 
You have considerable variety of new propositions and 
plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denounc- 
ing the old policy of the fathers. Some of you are for 
reviving the foreign slave-trade; some for a Congres- 
sional Slave-Code for the Territories; some for Con- 
gress forbidding the Territories to prohibit Slavery 
within their limits ; some for maintaining Slavery in 
the Territories throu<>-h the Judiciary; some for the 
"gur-reat pur-rinciple" that "if one man would 
enslave another, no third man should object," fantas- 
tically called "Popular Sovereignty;" but never a 
man among yon in favor of federal prohibition of slav- 
ery in federal territories, according to the practice of 
our fathers who framed the Government under which 
we live. Not one of all your various plans can show 
a precedent or an advocate in the century within which 
our Government originated. Consider, then, whether 
your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and vour 
chnrire of destructiveness against us, are based on the 
most clear and stable foundations. 

Again, vou say we have made the slaverv ouestion 
more Drominent than it formerly was. We denv it. 
We admit thnt it is more prominent, but we deny that 
wo m.nde if so. Tt was not we, but you, who discarded 
the old policy of the fathers. We resisted, and still 
resist, your innovation; and thence comes the greater 
nrominence of the question. Would you have that 
ouoslion rodnced to its former proportions? Go back 
to that old pobVv. What has been will be aorain, under 
Iho same conditioDS. If you would have the peace of 



Speech of Ahraham Lincoln 

tlie old times, re-adopt tlie precepts and polic}' of the 
old times. 

You charge that we stir up insurrections among 
your slaves. We deny it; and what is your proof f 
Harper's Ferry! John Brown!! John Brown was no 
Republican ; and you have failed to implicate a single 
Republican in his Harper's Ferry enterprise. If any 
member of our party is guilty in that matter, you know 
it or you do not know it. If you do know it, you are 
inexcusable to not designate the man, and prove the 
fact. If you do not know it, you are inexcusable to 
assert it, and especially to persist in the assertion after 
you have tried and failed to make the proof. You need 
not be told that persisting in a charge which one does 
not know to be true, is simply malicious slander. 

Some of you admit that no Republican designedly 
aided or encouraged the Harper's Ferry affair; but 
still insist that our doctrines and declarations neces- 
sarih" lead to such results. We do not believe it. We 
know we hold to no doctrine, and make no declarations, 
which were not held to and made by our fathers who 
framed the Government under which we live. You 
never dealt fairly by us in relation to this affair. When 
it occurred, some important State elections were near 
at hand, and you were in evident glee ^vith the belief 
that, by chargin.g the blame upon us, you could get an 
advantage of us in those elections. The elections 
came, and your expectations were not quite fulfilled. 
Every Republican man knew that, as to himself at 
least, your charge was a slander, and he was not much 
inclined by it to cast his vote in your favor. Repub- 
lican doctrines and declarations are accompanied with 
a continual protest against any interference whatever 
with your slaves, or with you about your slaves. Sure- 
ly, this does not encourage them to revolt. True, we 
do, in common with our fathers, who framed the Gov- 
ernment under which we live, declare our belief that 



Speech of Ahraliam Lincoln 

slavery is wrong ; but the slaves do not bear us declare 
even tliis. For anything we say or do, the slaves would 
scarcely know there is a Republican party. I believe 
they would not, in fact, generally know it but for your 
misrepresentations of us, in their hearing. In your 
political contests among yourselves, each faction 
charges the other with sympathy with Black Republi- 
canism ; and then, to give point to the charge, defines 
Black Republicanism to simply be insurrection, blood 
and thunder among the slaves. 

Slave insurrections are no more common now than 
they Vv^'ere before the Republican party was organized. 
What induced the Southampton insurrection, twenty- 
eight years ago, in which, at least, three times as many 
lives were lost as at Harper's Ferry? You can scarce- 
ly stretch your very elastic fancy to the conclusion 
that Southampton was got up by Black Repulilicanism. 
In the present state of things in the United States, I 
do not think a general, or even a very extensive slave 
insurrection, is possible. The indispensable concert of 
action cannot be attained. The slaves have no means 
of rapid communication ; nor can incendiary free men, 
black or white, supply it. The explosive materials are 
everywhere in parcels; but there neither are, nor can 
be supnlied, the indispensable connecting trains. 

Mucli is said by southern people about the affection 
of slaves for their masters and mistresses; and a part 
of it, at least, is true. A plot for an uprising could 
scarcely be devised and communicated to twenty indi- 
viduals before some one of them, to save the life of a 
fnvorite master or mistress, would divul^re it. This is 
Ihe rule; and the slave-revolution in Hayti was not 
an exception to it. but a case occurring under -neculiar 
circumstances. The gunpowder-plot of British his- 
tory, though not connected with slaves, was more in 
point. In that caso, only about twenty were admitted 
to llie secrot ; and yet one of thorn, in his anxiety to 



Speech of Abraham Lincoln 

save a friend, betrayed the plot to that friend, and, by 
consequence, averted the calamity. Occasional poison- 
ings from the kitchen, and open or stealthy assassina- 
tions in the field, and local revolts extending to a score 
or so, will continue to occur as the natural results of 
slavery; but no general insurrection of slaves as I 
think, can happen in this country for a long time. 
Whoever much fears, or much hopes, for such an event, 
will be alike disappointed. 

In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many 
years ago, ''It is still in our power to direct the process 
of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in 
such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensi- 
bly; and their places be, pari passu, filled up by free 
white laborers. If, on the contrary, it is left to force 
itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect 
held up." 

Mr. Jefferson did not mean to say, nor do I, that the 
power of emancipation is in the Federal Government. 
He spoke of Virginia; and, as to the power of eman- 
cir)ntion, I speak of the slaveholding States only. 

The Federal Government, however, as we insist, has 
the power of restraining the extension of the institu- 
tion — the power to insure that a slave insurrection 
shall never occur on any American soil which is now 
free from slavery. 

John Brown's effort was peculiar. It was not a 
slave insurrection. It was an attempt by white men 
to gf^t up a revolt among slaves, in which the slaves 
refused to participate. In fact, it was so absurd that 
the slaves, with all their ignorance, saw plainly enough 
that it could not succeed. That affair, in its philoso- 
phy, corresponds with the many attempts, related in 
history, at the assassination of kings and emperors. 
An entliusiast broods over the oppression of a people 
till he fancies himself commissioned by Heaven to 
liberate them. He ventures the attempt, which ends 



Speech of Ahraliam Lincoln 

in little else than in his own execution. Orsini's 
attempt on Lonis Napoleon, and John Brown's attempt 
at Harper's Ferry were, in their philosophy, precisely 
the same. The eagerness to cast blame on old England 
in the one case, and on New England in the other, does 
not disprove the sameness of the two things. 

And how mnch wonld it avail you, it yon could, by 
the use of John Brown, Helper's book, and the like, 
break up the Republican organization 1 Human action 
can be modified to some extent, but human nature can- 
not be changed. There is a judgment and a feeling 
against slavery in this nation, which cast at least a 
million and a half of votes. You cannot destroy that 
judirment and feeling — that sentiment — by breaking 
up the political organization which rallies around it. 
You can scarcely scatter and disperse an army which 
has been formed into order in the face of your heaviest 
fire, but if you could, how much would you gain by 
forcing the sentiment which created it out of the peace- 
ful channel of the ballot box, into some other channel? 
What would that other channel probably be? Would 
the number of John Browns be lessened or enlarged 
by the operation! 

But you will break up the Union rather than submit 
to a denial of your Constitutional rights. 

That has a somewhat reckless sound; but it would 
be palliated, if not fully justified, were we proposing, 
by the mere force of numbers, to deprive you of some 
right, plainly written down in the Constitution. But 
we are proposing no such thing. 

When 3^ou make these declarations, you have a spe- 
cific and well-understood allusion to an assumed Con- 
stitutional right of yours, to take slaves into the fed- 
eral territories, and to hold them there as property. 
But no such right is specifically written in the Consti- 
tution. That instrument is literally silent about any 
such right. We, on the contrary, den}^ that such a 



Speech of Abraham Lincoln 

right has any existence in the Constitution, even by 
implication. 

Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is, that you will 
destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to con- 
strue and enforce the Constitution as you please, on 
all points in dispute between you and us. You will 
rule or ruin in all events. 

This, plainy stated, is your language to us. Perhaps 
you ^\dll say the Supreme Court has decided the dis- 
puted Constitutional question in your favor. Not quite 
so. But waiving the lawyer's distinction between dic- 
tum and decision, the Courts have decided the question 
for you in a sort of way. The Courts have substan- 
tially said, it is your Constitutional right to take slaves 
into the federal territories, and to hold them there as 
property. 

When I say the decision was made in a sort of way, 
I mean it was made in a divided Court by a bare major- 
ity of the Judges, and they not quite agreeing with one 
another in the reasons for making it; that it is so 
made as that its avowed supporters disagree with one 
another about its meaning; and that it was mainly 
based upon a mistaken statement of fact — the state- 
ment in the opinion that ''the right of property in a 
slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Con- 
stitution. ' ' 

An inspection of the Constitution will show that the 
right of property in a slave is not distinctly and 
expressly affirmed in it. Bear in mind the Judges do 
not pledge their judicial opinion that such right is 
impliedly affirmed in the Constitution ; but they pledge 
their veracity that it is distinctly and expressly 
affirmed there— "distinctly" that is, not mingled with 
anything else— "expressly" that is, in words meaning 
just that, without the aid of any inference, and sus- 
ceptible of no other meaning. 



speech of Ahraham Lincoln 

If they had only pledged their judicial opinion that 
sncli right is affirmed in the instrument by implication, 
it would be open to others to show that neither the 
word ''slave" nor "Slavery" is to be found in the 
Constitution, nor the word "property" even, in any 
connection with language alluding to the things, slave, 
or slavery, and that wherever in that instrument the 
slave is alluded to, he is called a "person;" and wher- 
ever his master's legal right in relation to him is 
alluded to, it is spoken of as "service or labor due," 
as a "debt" payable in service or labor. Also, it would 
be open to show, by contemporaneous history, that this 
mode of alluding to slaves and slavery, instead of 
speaking of them, was employed on purpose to exclude 
from the Constitution the idea that there could be 
property in man. 

To show all this is easy and certain. 

When this obvious mistake of the Judges shall be 
brought to their notice, is it not reasonable to expect 
that they will withdraw the mistaken statement, and 
reconsider the conclusion based upon it! 

And then it is to be remembered that "our fathers, 
who framed the Government under which we live" — 
the men who made the Constitution — decided this same 
Constitutional question in our favor, long ago — decided 
it without a division among themselves, when making 
the decision ; mtliout division among themselves about 
the meaning of it after it was made, and so far as any 
evidence is left, without basing it upon any mistaken 
statement of facts. 

Under all these circumstances, do you really feel 
yourselves justified to break up this Government, 
unless such a court decision as yours is shall be at 
once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule of 
political action? 

But you will not abide the election of a Republican 
President. In that supposed event, you say, you will 



Speech of Abraham Lincoln 

destroy the Union ; and then, you say, the great crime 
of having destroyed it will be npon us ! 

That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my 
ear, and mutters through his teeth, "stand and deliver, 
or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer ! ' ' 

To be sure, what the robber demanded of me — my 
money — was my own ; and I had a clear right to keep 
it; but it was no more my own than my vote is my 
own; and the threat of death to me, to extort my 
money, and the threat of destruction to the Union, to 
extort my vote, can scarcely be distinguished in prin- 
ciple. 

A few words now to Republicans. It is exceedingly 
desirable that all parts of this great Confederacy shall 
be at peace, and in harmony, one with another. Let us 
Bepublicans do our part to have it so. Even though 
much provoked, let us do nothing through passion and 
ill temper. Even though the southern people will not 
so much as listen to us, let us calmly consider their 
demands, and yield to them if, in our deliberate view 
of our duty, we possibly can. Judging by all they say 
and do, and by the subject and nature of their contro- 
versy with us, let us determine, if we can, what will 
satisfy them? 

Will they be satisfied if the Territories be uncondi- 
tionally surrendered to them? We know they will not. 
Tn all their present complaints against us, the Terri- 
tories are scarcely mentioned. Invasions and insur- 
rections are the rage now. Will it satisfy them if, in 
the future, we have nothing to do with invasions and 
insurrections? We know it will not. We so know 
because we know we never had anything to do with 
invasions and insurrections; and yet this total 
abstaining does not exempt us from the charge and 
the denunciation. 

The question recurs, what will satisfy them? Sim- 
ply this: We must not only let them alone, but we 



Speech of Abraham Lincoln 

must, somehow, convince tliem that we do let them 
alone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task. 
We have been so trj'ing to convince them, from the 
very beginning of our organization, but with no suc- 
cess. In all our platforms and speeches we have con- 
stantly protested our purpose to let them alone; but 
this has had no tendency to convince them. Alike 
unavailing to convince them is the fact that they have 
never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb 
them. 

Those natural, and apparently adequate means all 
failing, what will convince them? This, and this only: 
cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling 
it right. And this must be done thoroughly — done in 
acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated 
— we must place ourselves avowedly mth them. Doug- 
las 's new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, 
suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, 
whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in 
private. We must arrest and return their fugitive 
slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our 
Free-State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must 
be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, 
before they will cease to believe that all their troubles 
proceed from us. 

I am ouite aware they do not state their case pre- 
cisely in this way. Most of them would probably say 
to us, ''Let us alone, do nothing to us, and say what 
you please about slavery." But we do let them alone 
— have never disturbed them — so that, after all, it is 
what we say, which dissatisfies them. They will con- 
tinue to accuse us of doinor, until we cease saying. 

T am also aware they have not, as vet, in terms, 
demanded the overthrow of our Free-State Constitu- 
tions. Yet those Constitutions declare the wrong of 
slavery, with more solemn emphasis, than do all other 
sayings against it; and when all these other sayings 



Sijeecli of Abraham Lincoln 

shall have been silenced, the overthrow of these Con- 
stitutions will be demanded, and nothing be lefl to 
resist the demand. It is nothing to the contrary, that 
they do not demand the whole of this just now. 
Demanding what they do, and for the reason they do, 
they can voluntarily stop nowhere short of this con- 
summation. Holding, as they do, that slavery is 
morally right, and socially elevating, they cannot 
cease to demand a full national recognition of it, as 
a legal right, and a social blessing. 

Nor can we justifiably withhold this, on any ground 
save our conviction that slavery is wrong. If slavery 
is right, all words, acts, laws, and constitutions against 
it, are themselves wrong, and should be silenced, and 
swept away. If it is right, we cannot justly object to 
its nationality — its universality; if it is wrong, they 
cannot justly insist upon its extension — its enlarge- 
ment. All they ask, we could readily grant, if we 
thought slavery right; all we ask, they could as 
readily grant, if they thought it wrong. Their think- 
ing it right, and our thinking it wrong, is the precise 
fact upon which depends the whole controversy. 
Thinking it right, as they do, they are not to blame 
for desiring its full recognition, as being right; but, 
thinking it wrong, as we do, can we yield to them? 
Can we cast our votes Mdth their view, and against 
our own? In view of our moral, social, and political 
responsibilities, can we do this? 

AVrong as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to 
lot it alone where it is, because that much is due to 
the necessity arising from its actual presence in the 
nation; but can we, while our votes will prevent it, 
allow it to spread into the National Territories, and 
to overrun us here in these Free States! 

If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand 
by our duty, fearlessly and effectively. Let us be 
diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances 



OCf' 



Speech of Abraham Lincoln 

wherewitli we are so industriously plied and belabored 
— contrivances such as groping for some middle 
ground between the right and the wrong, vain as the 
search for a man who should be neither a living man 
nor a dead man — such as a policy of "don't care" on 
a question about which all true men do care — such as 
Union appeals beseeching true Union men to yield to 
Disunionists, reversing the divine rule, and calling, 
not the sinners, but the righteous to repentance — such 
as invocations to Washington, imploring men to unsay 
what Washington said, and undo what Washington did. 
Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false 
accusations against us, nor frightened from it by men- 
aces of detruction to the Government, nor of dungeons 
to ourselves. Let us have faith that right makes 

MIGHT, and in that FAITH, LET US, TO THE END, DARE 
TO DO OUR DUTY, AS WE UNDERSTAND IT. 



H75 75 561 



A 



<. 



<, 



.0 



,^^ 






.Hq 



^' .^^ ^«<^° _^'^. V 



.-^q^ 




^^ ^ -' 



^>^my 



i-" V, 




v^ .r. 



.-b^^ .:^.:'. 






y^^ 











^^-V 

V ^ 






?.^-n^. 



^..^^ ^ 



.V^. 



■^ * «- . -I • a' 



•J^^ , « o 






.0 





1^ . - o. ^. 













,?^ 








<. ^-'^.^^ 



^J^c^ 



,40, 






sV. 



.^ 



^- 



V 







((^^ 







.S^. 
















^*^-'^. 










^. 



.^ 



u 









,/.. 



?y"-^<^. 







°'""-'''"- ^'% '-111;.' .^^'■^-^, v^v3i.^:-- .^^^-^. 



.* 



.f 



"^. 






^ o 



/ V 







<-^' 



^ 










C) * - - 








c" . 








0^ 




'^_ •■ a\' --„ ^-^ '--^ A^ ^-^ '"•'' \^ 

..^^^*&^\ /^is&\ .-^^^*'.\ /^^y^' ' 



■^"^ . 



r-T-^, 



* ' -"^ '^'' '*^ o ^^ ,^^^ 






.* 



^* .• 



" o « ri» , 






V 






^^ v%3>:-.- ^,^^' \"mT\^'^ \ '-^s /\ "^i^.- .' 









,*-\. 



^ 



A 



o 






A 



<^' 



.^.|^; ^0 



.0 



r'v. 






O S^ . - -P r-*^ ^ , .-4. .<^ . 











.^ 



INDIANA 



Sif^* N.MANCHESTER, B-^ •-,:.. 



o 

. '1/ ••:■.' ■'y ♦ av '^ . 



^ 



A 



.^(m^\ 






A^ c°-=« '^. ** 0^' - 



^ **a>',/r/^^ " ^ 



